Skip to main content

View Diary: Do We Finally Know Who Tossed the Flash-Bang Grenade At Scott Olsen and His Rescuers? (144 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If his name has been publicized... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jpmassar, cville townie, kyril, elwior

    ...given what we've seen from Anonymous in the past RE: Anthony Bologna in NYC, I'd give it a week tops before any and all publicly available information about this guy is posted in a video.  

    That said, I agree with you that a full investigation and court proceedings need to ensue.  Watching people like that (assuming he actually did throw the flash-bang, innocent until proven guilty, etc.) get ground to dust beneath the wheels of justice-slow though they may turn-is a very, VERY satisfying experience.

    Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything. -Harry S. Truman / -8.00, -6.77

    by Shadowmage36 on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 07:38:47 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I understand how the legal system is supposed (6+ / 0-)

      to work. But if we presume that someone is "innocent until proven guilty", but due to connections with higher-ups neither an investigation nor prosecution takes place, they are not really "innocent" except in a legal sense in that they have not been proven guilty by a court of law.

      Does this mean they didn't do it? Not hardly. Perhaps we need a new phrase to describe the true status of their guilt when the preponderance of evidence is ignored to give them a free ride. I am leaning toward "guilty as hell".

      •  Good for internal, but for media or pro-police (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jpmassar, elwior

        sorts maybe the phrase should be "not proven innocent" or "not tried for involuntary manslaughter", etc.

        If my statements are carefully "just the facts" then it's less likely to get deflected. I witnessed a masterful rant at a forum with a police officer at the table and the man next to him was calling a DOJ program "failed" by it's own stated goals. The only response the "justice" officer could have said was 1) Obama said one thing but ordered another; 2) DoJ district offices are in rebellion (not following orders); 3) Obama never said that (but it's on tape) ; 4) The stated goal isn't the REAL goal.

        So the "justice" officer dodged and talked about something else when it was his turn.

        So instead of calling someone "guilty" I'd rather harp on "we don't know if he's guilty or not, there never was a trial!" and "there should have been a trial!!"

        For another rant, being imprisoned doesn't mean you're guilty. A large percentage haven't been tried yet (awaiting trail)! And anyone scared into a plea bargain hasn't been "proved" guilty either!!

        The boss needs you, you don't need him. -- France general strike, May 1968

        by stargaze on Wed Feb 22, 2012 at 02:33:38 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The other possibility to pursue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is federal charges, as a "color of law" violation. Not holding my breath for those, especially with Holder running the DoJ.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site